On Mon, 07 May 2007 11:32:36 +0530, Sandip Bhattacharya said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am not sure I am convinced by these statements. As a developer, I
>> fail to see how the GPL helps me any less than the BSD style licenses
>> do -- unless you assume that all developers want to squirrel code
>> away and make loads of money off other people's work.
> Correction - as an _FOSS_ developer you fail to see that.
> Would you agree that in the current commercial world, there are more
> closed source programmers than FOSS ones? GPL-ed libraries are not an
> option for these people, unless the author agrees to dual-license
> it. Since in many of the major libraries, there are too many
> "co-authors", I doubt whether dual licences are an option for these
> libraries.
The original statement did not make this distinction. Had you
said that the authors not being helped by the GPL are closed source
folks, I would agree. I, personally, see no reason why my work should
facilitate closed source people exploiting the end users -- and thus
see no negatives of this aspect of the GPL. If people want to make
money -- more power to them. They just can;t use _my_ work to make
money for _them_.
So the GPL discriminates against closed source developers.
Hallelujah.
> I do not want to make this into a negative point for GPL. I am just
> trying to emphasise that GPL has different goals than other licenses.
I consider this a positive aspect of the GPL. Standing on
shoulder of giants thing. Synergy. Proliferation of ideas and code,
emerging in ways the original author sometimes could not have imagined.
manoj
--
Cohen's Law: There is no bottom to worse.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
_______________________________________________
ilugd mailinglist -- [email protected]
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
